Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Responses to report 2603

BART acknowledges no OIG charter, explains existing statutory authority, disputes aspects of negotiation and investigation history, and proposes conditional cooperation policies. Further analysis is not adoption; existing-procedure claims are not independently verified.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by BART Board of Directors

27

Addressed

2

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

1

Implemented

3

Will be implemented

4

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

0

Unclear

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only, not a legal ruling or verification of factual claims, forecast accuracy or completed implementation. Finding scores assess the response’s stated position, reasons and traceability, not agreement with the jury. Each audit selects its unchanged original and physical PDF page. Dates are included only when supplied by the document; undated responses are not assigned inferred dates. Recommendation deadlines are not copied into agency commitments unless independently stated in the answer.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

7

Extracted commitments

1

Definite or bounded timing

4

Conditional timing

2

No timeframe

BART2603-R1 · No timeframe stated

Analyze whether a new policy on OIG assessment of management actions is necessary.

No target date stated

BART2603-R2 · No timeframe stated

Analyze whether a new policy on OIG follow-up authority is necessary.

No target date stated

BART2603-R3 · Conditional timing

Bring a proposed cooperation and records-access policy to Board for consideration.

After analysis of and compliance with applicable labor-law requirements, if any.

BART2603-R4 · Conditional timing

Bring a separate employee cooperation policy, not an ECOC amendment, to Board for consideration.

After applicable labor-law analysis and compliance.

BART2603-R5 · Bounded timeframe

Consider whether incorporating ECOC into CBAs should take priority over other negotiation needs.

During 2027 contract negotiations; no promise of negotiated incorporation.

BART2603-R6 · Conditional timing

Bring proposed cooperation policy without supervisor approval to Board.

After applicable labor-law analysis and compliance.

BART2603-R8 · Conditional timing

Analyze need for an OIG charter.

Once outcomes of the other Board policy actions are known.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 29 of 29 items

finding · BART2603-F1

F1: In 2018, Bay Area voters approved the creation of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees and identifies June 2018 voter approval of Regional Measure 3 as establishing the OIG.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement with a dated electoral measure as checkable basis; no added account of establishment mechanics.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explicit agreement with a dated electoral measure as checkable basis; no added account of establishment mechanics.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 1
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F2

F2: Public Utilities Code Section 28841 outlines the foundational structure and responsibilities of the OIG but does not establish details regarding the scope or exercise of the OIG’s authority.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with clarification: existing statutory authority supports operations; MissionMark records five audits, 55 investigations and 172 recommendations as of May 2026.

Audit analysis

Explains both operational authority and remaining ambiguity about policy compliance with an identified tracking system.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains both operational authority and remaining ambiguity about policy compliance with an identified tracking system.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 1
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F3

F3: The OIG does not presently have a charter.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F3; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 1
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F4

F4: In 2021, the OIG presented a draft charter to the BART Board of Directors (Board) and the Board’s Audit Committee.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees and lists committee/Board presentations, including January 14, 2021 Board and July 20, 2021 Audit Committee meetings.

Audit analysis

Dated meetings provide traceable support. The response says four committee occasions but lists five dates; counts are not silently reconciled.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Dated meetings provide traceable support. The response says four committee occasions but lists five dates; counts are not silently reconciled.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F5

F5: Neither the Board nor the Audit Committee adopted or revised the draft charter received from the OIG in 2021.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees; says OIG revised its own proposal after the 2021 presentation and discussed revisions with committees.

Audit analysis

Distinguishes OIG revisions from Board adoption/revision, but identifies no particular later revision record.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
1/2

Distinguishes OIG revisions from Board adoption/revision, but identifies no particular later revision record.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F6

F6: Following its August 1, 2024, meeting that included on its agenda an “OIG Charter Discussion,” the Audit Committee has not placed on its agenda a discussion or review of an OIG charter.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees while admitting no charter agenda item since August 2024; cites SB827 timing and April 16, 2026 cooperation/retaliation policy actions.

Audit analysis

Explains related policy actions but does not clearly identify what part of the no-charter-agenda proposition is disputed. Its January 1, 2026 SB827 assertion conflicts with the jury’s page 5 statement that the bill died; neither is externally resolved.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains related policy actions but does not clearly identify what part of the no-charter-agenda proposition is disputed. Its January 1, 2026 SB827 assertion conflicts with the jury’s page 5 statement that the bill died; neither is externally resolved.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F7

F7: The Board has not acted to adopt a charter for the OIG.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F7; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F7; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 3
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F8

F8: The Board has not itself attempted to negotiate with its unions a resolution to the unions’ objections to any of the OIG’s proposed charters.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with clarification: Board/GM did not negotiate union objections; OIG was asked to hold discussions, not negotiations.

Audit analysis

Addresses responsibility and distinguishes discussion from bargaining with concrete assertions but no identified supporting record here.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

Addresses responsibility and distinguishes discussion from bargaining with concrete assertions but no identified supporting record here.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 3
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F9

F9: The Board asked the OIG to negotiate directly with the unions the issue of requiring advance notification to the unions when the OIG wishes to interview a union member as part of an investigation.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: July 20, 2021 committee direction was to meet representatives, return with a revised charter and understand concerns, not negotiate.

Audit analysis

Identifies disputed instruction and a dated meeting as basis.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Identifies disputed instruction and a dated meeting as basis.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 3
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F10

F10: BART adopted a written Internal Audit Charter confirming that its internal audit (IA) function has full and unrestricted access to data, records and information, physical property, and personnel, including union members, pertinent to carrying out IA responsibilities.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: management internally approved the charter; there is no formal adoption procedure or express union reference; cites July 18, 2025 presentation.

Audit analysis

Explains governance and personnel-scope distinctions using named charters and a dated meeting.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains governance and personnel-scope distinctions using named charters and a dated meeting.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 4
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F11

F11: The Board has not issued a written policy or established formal procedures stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F11; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F11; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 4
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F12

F12: A BART executive has taken the position that the OIG cannot interview them unless their supervisor approves.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with clarification: personal counsel sought GM concurrence; executive later supplied written answers; April 16, 2026 CFO statement recognized OIG authority.

Audit analysis

Explains origin and subsequent scope of the objection with a dated committee statement.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains origin and subsequent scope of the objection with a dated committee statement.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F13

F13: A BART executive has questioned the OIG’s authority to conduct a retaliation investigation.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with clarification: executive questioned retaliation jurisdiction; April 16, 2026 CFO statement later recognized that authority.

Audit analysis

Concrete distinction between initial objection and later management position, tied to a dated meeting.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Concrete distinction between initial objection and later management position, tied to a dated meeting.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 8Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F14

F14: Questions raised by a BART executive regarding the scope of the OIG’s authority caused the OIG to halt a retaliation investigation for several months.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: January 7 counsel letter said work would continue; some aspects paused, others continued; May 14 letter closed the investigation without sustained allegations.

Audit analysis

Separates a partial pause from an entire halt and identifies two dated letters; does not independently resolve the allegations.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Separates a partial pause from an entire halt and identifies two dated letters; does not independently resolve the allegations.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F15

F15: BART has adopted a written charter that states that IA has the authority to determine the adequacy of management’s actions taken in response to IA reports and recommendations.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: charter is internally approved, does not expressly grant the stated power, but IA assesses responses in practice; quotes risk-reporting language.

Audit analysis

Explains adoption, written authority and practice distinctions with an identified charter passage.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains adoption, written authority and practice distinctions with an identified charter passage.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F16

F16: The Board has not issued a written policy or established written procedures stating that the OIG has the authority to determine adequacy of BART management’s actions taken in response to OIG audit and investigative recommendations.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with clarification: no separate Board policy, but cites District Act authority and May 2026 Status Update on Recommendations.

Audit analysis

Addresses the missing written policy without denying claimed existing statutory powers; identifies a checkable report.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Addresses the missing written policy without denying claimed existing statutory powers; identifies a checkable report.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F17

F17: Assigning the Board the responsibility for determining whether management has adequately implemented OIG recommendations following an audit or investigation would bypass an independent evaluation by the OIG of management’s actions in response to OIG recommendations.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: Board has not taken sole responsibility; both Board and OIG can assess implementation under the District Act.

Audit analysis

Explains nonexclusive authority and cites the May 2026 status report; this is an attributed interpretation, not a legal determination.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Explains nonexclusive authority and cites the May 2026 status report; this is an attributed interpretation, not a legal determination.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F18

F18: The BART Employee Code of Conduct (ECOC) requires employees to act ethically, comply with District policies, and report misconduct.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F18; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F18; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F19

F19: The ECOC does not presently require cooperation with OIG investigations.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F19; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F19; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F20

F20: BART’s current Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) require employees to comply with BART’s rules but do not explicitly incorporate the ECOC.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

Partially disagrees: CBAs govern employment terms while most rules sit in the separate Orange Book, which also applies to nonrepresented staff.

Audit analysis

Identifies governing documents but does not squarely resolve whether CBAs require rule compliance or explicitly incorporate ECOC.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Identifies governing documents but does not squarely resolve whether CBAs require rule compliance or explicitly incorporate ECOC.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BART2603-F21

F21: BART’s CBAs do not specifically require cooperation with OIG investigations.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F21; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

2/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement engages F21; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · BART2603-R1

R1: In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to determine whether management’s planned actions will adequately address any issues identified in an audit or investigation.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

Requires analysis, arguing OIG already has authority under BART Act and May 2026 status report.

Audit analysis

Gives reason to question a new policy, but no analysis completion date.

Extracted commitments

Analyze whether a new policy on OIG assessment of management actions is necessary.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 9Response page 8

recommendation · BART2603-R2

R2: In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to follow up on audit and investigation recommendations until the OIG is satisfied that management has either implemented the recommendations or otherwise adequately addressed the concerns brought forward by the OIG.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

Requires analysis, citing existing authority and May 2026 review of management responses.

Audit analysis

Addresses follow-up function but does not supply a dated analysis plan or a commitment to adopt new language.

Extracted commitments

Analyze whether a new policy on OIG follow-up authority is necessary.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 9Response page 8

recommendation · BART2603-R3

R3: In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Implementation pending: proposed employee cooperation/records policy will go to Board after applicable labor-law analysis.

Audit analysis

Future Board consideration is conditional; it is not completed adoption or a confirmed December 31 completion date.

Extracted commitments

Bring a proposed cooperation and records-access policy to Board for consideration.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
After analysis of and compliance with applicable labor-law requirements, if any. · Conditional timing
Report page 9Response page 8

recommendation · BART2603-R4

R4: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider revising the ECOC to require all officers and employees to cooperate with OIG audits and investigations.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Implementation pending via a separate cooperation policy rather than an ECOC amendment, after labor-law analysis.

Audit analysis

Explains an alternative instrument and condition, not adoption of the specific proposed ECOC change.

Extracted commitments

Bring a separate employee cooperation policy, not an ECOC amendment, to Board for consideration.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
After applicable labor-law analysis and compliance. · Conditional timing
Report page 9Response page 9

recommendation · BART2603-R5

R5: In the next negotiations of CBAs, the Board should consider seeking to have the ECOC explicitly incorporated by reference into new CBAs.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will consider priority of incorporating ECOC during 2027 contract negotiations; says ECOC already applies to represented staff.

Audit analysis

Bounded consideration is not a commitment to obtain negotiated incorporation.

Extracted commitments

Consider whether incorporating ECOC into CBAs should take priority over other negotiation needs.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
During 2027 contract negotiations; no promise of negotiated incorporation. · Bounded timeframe
Report page 9Response page 9

recommendation · BART2603-R6

R6: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy affirming the authority of the OIG to interview any BART employee or officer, including executive leadership, without seeking prior approval.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Implementation pending: proposed cooperation policy without supervisor approval will go to Board after labor-law analysis.

Audit analysis

Identifies intended policy scope and condition; no fixed agency adoption date.

Extracted commitments

Bring proposed cooperation policy without supervisor approval to Board.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
After applicable labor-law analysis and compliance. · Conditional timing
Report page 10Response page 10

recommendation · BART2603-R7

R7: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider requesting that the OIG develop written procedures that clarify employee obligations and rights to union representation during an investigation, at the employee’s discretion.

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims OIG already maintains written procedures on representation rights and informs employees of those rights.

Audit analysis

Engages requested procedures through a claim of existing practice; policy text and implementation are not independently verified.

Report page 10Response page 10

recommendation · BART2603-R8

R8: By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Audit Committee to begin the process of adopting a formal charter for the OIG.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will analyze need for an OIG charter after outcomes of other proposed policies are known.

Audit analysis

Explains dependency rather than promising charter adoption by December 31.

Extracted commitments

Analyze need for an OIG charter.

Responsible party
BART Board of Directors
Timing
Once outcomes of the other Board policy actions are known. · Conditional timing
Report page 10Response page 10